Alot of the proofs of concepts don't prove much of a concept, either. Most of them are built like over-funded (and under-analyzed) architecture student projects, where you might get a few points straight (roof over head...check. walls...check...what else do I need?). But space is totally unlivable 2 seasons out of the year, or it's in pieces after the first storm, etc. That beach hut...have fun replacing glass every *month* from those huge swingin' doors...that is if you survive having it rain down on you from 20' in the air. Most of these should have been done in 1:10 scale. But I guess that's not nearly as dramatic, is it?

There's alot of thought that goes into a house. structural, utilities, airflow and ventilation, insulation. They should put cross-disciplinary constraints on these concept models...if you build a plane and it doesn't fly...it isn't a plane. If you build a house, and in 2 yrs it falls apart...it isn't a house.

Click to expand...

Agree with you in that respect - many of these tiny houses don't have year round residents, and to ME, that's the difference between a hotel room for two weeks and living in one the other 50 weeks in the year!

Our place, imperfect as it is, is a liveable house and it's got the clutter to show for it.

GF and I share an about 1550 SF 3BR 1.75BA house. It's crowded and tiny. Narrow doorways and not enough closet space. Great floorplan, though, if it were only twice as big! I'm damn glad it's just the two of us trying to live in this little thing!

Click to expand...

Maybe that's a floorplan issue and a quantity-of-stuff issue more than a square footage issue?

We live in a 1200 sq foot house, and it is too big for just the two of us, but too small when we have guests. I think ideally I'd have a smaller house but with a separate little guest house. Relatively small details in terms of layout can make all the difference in terms of livability, and even more so being willing to get rid of stuff.

Alot of the proofs of concepts don't prove much of a concept, either. Most of them are built like over-funded (and under-analyzed) architecture student projects, where you might get a few points straight (roof over head...check. walls...check...what else do I need?). But space is totally unlivable 2 seasons out of the year, or it's in pieces after the first storm, etc. That beach hut...have fun replacing glass every *month* from those huge swingin' doors...that is if you survive having it rain down on you from 20' in the air. Most of these should have been done in 1:10 scale. But I guess that's not nearly as dramatic, is it?

Click to expand...

I agree. I love the photos and blogs and descriptions, but not many of them pass the red-face test of being places a person could really live year-round. And even fewer pass the sustainability test of being houses that would work in a relatively dense neighborhood.

That and that "Tiny House" becomes as much hobby or pastime more so than a simply a dwelling.

Click to expand...

Think of it as the opposite of the desire for McMansions. Some people are overly proud of their gargantuan houses. Others, their minute boxes in the woods.

I'm searching publications for that 2 story cabin, as it looks perfect in size for me. As a second home I can spend long periods of time in. Depending on where it's placed, I couldn't live there as I work with computers for a living...

and both become a labor of love, as they get to the extreme, hence both can really become a "hobby," keeping up with your lifestyle. I'm sure there'd be some who think that climbing up to haul water up to your cistern so you can take a warm shower in the middle of the winter because you chose to live in a portable "house" that is incapable of keeping utility hookups that don't freeze in the winter is just as fucking annoying as mowing 2 acres of lawn in the spring. Both are a little extreme, and take a bit of work to do. But some love it, and would have it no other way.

Alot of folks like it as a 2nd home...which means it *isn't* about minimalism...at all. It's about luxury. It's about escapism.

The other thing I suspect about the "Tiny House Movement" it's another, "TV? I wouldn't know. I don't even own a TV."

"2,500 square feet? Wow. What do you do with all that space? I mean, I'd get lost in there. You see, I live in 250 square feet and that's more than enough."

They'll then proceed to tell you about living in their "Tiny House" in minute detail.

That and that "Tiny House" becomes as much hobby or pastime more so than a simply a dwelling.

Click to expand...

Well, I tend to think of our palace, at 800 SF as more of a 'small' than a tiny house. For us, it did start as a luxury item - a second house. Our intention was not to live here full time when we bought the place.

I was fortunate that the place grew on my wife and I we decided to try it - and decided we do like it. For me, it's more location - I don't think that had we swapped our old place for this place in the location of our other house, we would be nearly as happy, but we swapped 1/5th acre for 7 acres and that makes another huge difference.

And, yea, we don't have a TV yet - use netflix on DSL since its cheaper than 'real' TV satellite service here. No cable.

I'm a fan of doing with less, but I don't think we have to live like monks, either.

Something about balance, right? There is adequate space, then there is vastly oversized, IMHO. Robert Mondavi's house in Napa Valley was 10,000 square feet, and a one bedroom. Granted he used it for a lot of entertaining, but seriously....

. For me, it's more location - I don't think that had we swapped our old place for this place in the location of our other house, we would be nearly as happy, but we swapped 1/5th acre for 7 acres and that makes another huge difference.

....

Click to expand...

and climate counts too I would imagine. If you can live in the outdoors for many months of the year, then 800 sq ft is going to be very comfortable. If you're cooped up because of inclement weather for ten months, maybe not